tvc184

I don't really expect Obama to march in public as a security risk by I also expect a better show from the USA other than to send an AG that has already resigned from office (awaiting a replacement) and then not to march with other world leaders that apparently were not so concerned for their own safety as to not show a united from against terrorism.    I see where the German chancellor, Israel and British prime ministers, French president and others felt strongly enough to be seen in a solid front. At the very least Obama could have send Biden to be seen with the others.    A proud country which has led the world for decades now creeps up from behind, not wanting to be seen. You can bet that our allies are fully aware of what they are facing both in the fight against terror and the claimed support from the USA. You can bet that they are waiting for a change also. 

  Admitted? Sure, according to what you call "admitted".   I looked for a semi-credible source that was not Fox News as I know that would automatically be dismissed as invalid. I found almost instantly an article on ABC News (hardly a spokesman for conservative causes). It said that Carson is claimed by buzzfeed.com to have plagiarized works by conservative author William Federer.    In response according to Federer, the article by buzzfeed is "disingenuous" and it "grossly misinterpreted". Federer claims to have given Carson permission to use his works, the works were used appropriately and he (Federer) "read and approved" Carson's transcript. So the claimed victim of the plagiarism by buzzfeed said that it is not true, is being misrepresented, he has given permission and he read and approved the transcript.  It seems the only "victim" in this claim of theft of another person's work is buzzfeed in their attempt to make a political issue where none exists.   Then again, maybe ABC News is lying to cover for a conservative that may run for president. Yeah, that's it........   [Hidden Content]

Unfortunately (or fortunately in many issues) this is not 1965 where we could bring cap guns to school and play cowboys and Indians or cops and robbers on the playground at recess and it was thought of as healthy play time.    Back then we did not have to worry about nor could we likely have conceived an issue with gang violence, carjacking, home invasion robberies, drive by shootings or mass school shooting perpetrated by children.    What we could not in our wildest dreams think of in 1965 is a reality today. That is the world we live in. We need to teach children and everyone else that if you are in a location that it is likely dangerous to wave a real gun around, it is probably not a good idea to wave a real looking toy or BB/paint ball/airsoft gun around. 

  That is why Ben Carson said that everyone needs to pay income taxes. He believes in progressive taxes as we have today where the more you make, the higher your taxes are. But we have a huge percentage of the public that pays no taxes and others that not only get back no taxes but get a "return" without paying any. How do you pay nothing in and yet get some "back"?    Carson's belief is that if you are paying taxes out of your salary no matter what and if spending goes up, so does your taxes, you might have a different opinion on spending. It is quite easy when you are voting to spend another person's money. It is not so easy when it comes out of your pocket. I vote that since the medical field costs go up way more than the rate of inflation, all members of that industry are making more money than they deserve and therefore need to pay more taxes. There are way more non-healthcare workers than there are workers so let's vote that into law.  See how easy that is when you aren't the one paying the bill?   I have not much of a clue what else Carson stands for but in at least that example, he is entirely correct. In his words, when you have "skin in the game", you have a different opinion. 

Look at the Beaumont Enterprise online today and you will see a story of a man killed by his brother over an argument over which station to watch (I will bet one wanted to see the Cowboys). That is exactly the type of stuff that I was talking about above. I have no clue but I would not be surprised if that was not the first visit by the police at that residence.    Zimmerman seems to fit that mold of always being involved in some kind of short tempered or ill advised confrontation. Sometimes people of that sort tend to attract each other.    He (and thousands of other people) will not likely turn over a new leaf soon and will probably continue to be a frequent attention getter from the police.    The only discussion value of it will be the intent to show that he murdered Martin because he got a speeding ticket last week, he has a previous arrest record or he gets involved in domestic disturbances. None of which is true however it will continue to keep him in the news.    If prior and future acts of violence show guilt in a particular crime, then OJ is guilty of murder beyond the shadow of a doubt. He has a history of domestic violence before the murders and was convicted of an act of violence after his murder trial. Seems like proof to me. I wonder how many of OJ's defenders will look at the Zimmerman issues in the news and conclude that he is guilty by innuendo of actions before and after but will defend OJ with a worse record.  

I skewered one doe.

Don't tell me the news media blew it up out of proportion. Surely that could not have happened.

He was pointing it around corners like he was using grocery aisles for cover and waving it around. He was doing so while standing in one location. It wasn't like he was shopping and going about his business like a normal shopper. All of that can be seen on the store video. Waving a gun around in the public is not conducive to a good outcome whether the gun is real or not. Let's say that in that situation the guy was never shot by the police. Let's say that they pointed their guns at him just in case but recognized at the last second that it was a toy. Or maybe he saw them coming and put it down. The fact that the police have to come in with guns drawn because citizens are calling the police is an indication that you were doing something that probably is not wise.

That is not what I said but I have no problem with that kind of statement. That kind of claimed incident happens hundreds, if not thousands of times a day for police and happens locally almost daily. The fact that it happens locally and you never hear about it but it happens 1,500 miles away and you do is definitely a media circus. And like I said, he is a frequent flyer who has had and will likely continue to have run ins with the police because he apparently does not work and play well with others. Just like there are dozens of addresses locally where the police in that city can hear the address and tell you the names of the people that live there, what the claim will be, and any arrest that have been made if any. None of them ever make the news however.

Zimmerman is like any of quite a few people that we deal with on a frequent basis. They are frequent flyers. There are homes that we go to 20 times a year for a difunctional person or family. Sometimes we make an arrest and sometimes we don't. I woukd best that most people in this forum have lived a lifetime with the police never having been called to their home or if they did it was to report a crime like a theft. There are houses however where we could put up a police substation. Zimmerman reminds me of such a person. He is hardly unique but his self defense incident makes him a media darling.

    It was until she didn't negotiate a new contract. 

  And well you should be!!   :)     It is still a good video and worth repeating. I see no comments on it so I am assuming that not many (any?) people watched it or they have no response. 

It is mostly a waste of money. If it only videos when the Taser is activated, you will likely only see the incident a second or two before the darts are deployed. All you will probably see is the darts striking the suspect and it is not like that won't be known anyway and the barbs will let you know that the Taser has penetrated the skin. The Taser already and for a long time has shown the date and time of usage and how many times and for how long it was fired. It is part of our policy to upload the data when the Taser is used. The only difference the camera will show is the darts hitting. That is hardly going to end any debate whether deploying the Taser was improper as whatever happened beforehand to cause the use of force will not be on the video.   More feel good expensive toys to try and appease some groups. I am not against using them and you can replace my Taser with a new one today. I could care less but I also believe that it will not show what happens to cause the Taser to be used in the first place. 

The federal government is writing checks that it can't cash.    The state government in our state (and likely in most others with some on the verge of bankruptcy) has cut back on education funds to keep taxes down.    Where are you now going to get the money to pay for two years of college?    Not only will such a program end hundreds of million dollars from private funds coming into colleges, it will very likely increase student enrollment. That means more teachers, more classrooms, etc., so it will not be a matter of funding what already exists but will be expanding the already overburdened system.    If a nation can simply print money and not have to back it up with taxes (real money) or precious metals, why not just end all taxes, print all the paper we want with nothing to back it up and see what happens.    It is a stupid idea which is just an attempt at another nail in the coffin for freedom. The attempt is to no longer be responsible for anything except the federal government. Obamacare was a foot in the door and he wants to add a possible equally disastrous expense. At least in healthcare, some of us have to put money into the system by buying insurance (even at inflated rates to the slugs can get theirs free). Where will the private money be pumped in from for colleges if it is all "free"?   By the way, I have read a couple of articles on the proposal and there is no proposal on how it would actually be accomplished or funded. There is only the claim that it is needed.  

  I posted the same video in Lapse of Protocol thread.   Apparently you don't read all threads with equal fervor.    :D

    Yes they can.          Yes they can.      Civil and criminal are two different issues. 

  It is common for people to scream constitutional rights. I agree that we have and should have those rights. It is only my opinion but maybe a majority of the public in many cases has no clue exactly what rights are and/or what the Supreme Court of the United States (or other courts) has said about them.    In the religious area for example, a TX police officer wanted to wear a Christian Cross on his uniform. He was denied since jewelry is not permitted by department policy on uniforms. In other words an officer can't wear his Mason's emblem, the Boy Scout pin or anything else and that means religious symbols also. The department however (Arlington PD) allowed him to wear a ring or a necklace inside of his shirt since those were allowed by policy. It would have been wrong for the department to allow rings to be worn but not any Christian symbol. That would have been a violation of rights but they did not do that. They did not forbid him to display the Cross but only on his uniform shirt (hence the term "uniform" meaning all the same). He was fired and appealed. He lost the appeal and filed a federal lawsuit. He lost that and appealed to the 5th Circuit in New Orleans as the last step before the Supreme Court. They upheld the firing for insubordination and fail to follow rules. He lastly appealed to the Supreme Court and they rejected the appeal, allowing the 5th Circuit ruling to stand.    That is merely an example but people will shout religious freedom having no clue as to what laws including case law issued by courts. It is like anything becomes legal if I just throw the word "religion", "Christian, "Jewish", etc., on front of the argument. I can't legally smoke cocaine because my Church of the Rock isn't talking about the Rock of Salvation or smoke marijuana because I attend the Church of the Holy Blunt.    I think the duty of the parents and the state to protect a child goes beyond simply the parents wanting something. When she turns 18, she can make her own choice. When she is a child, I think it is abuse to deny reasonable medical care and allowing her to die does not seem like reasonable medical care. 

  No, it's not her choice. That age of medical decisions is 18. She is still a child in that state. When she turns 18, she can refuse anything. 

.... or watch the video that I posted.

It is a simple concept.... comply.   Watch this video and note the guy that the video is about. Note that he knows it is training and knows that he will not be hurt but see what happens when put under stress.   [Hidden Content]   Sometimes it is good to walk in another person's shoes. 

The secret that everyone is showing on the internet......... 

I think it is global warming.

    I don't. I think you are merely relating truthful life experiences and I can guarantee that back then it was different on the west side of PA than on the east side of PA. That is history. 

  I cannot answer for what someone did almost 40 years ago. I was going through some old Port Arthur records and saw where my uncle was arrested for "suspicion". It was just that, suspicion.  At one time that was legal. In the 1979 case of Brown v. Texas the Supreme Court threw out such "mere suspicion" detentions. This is the direct testimony from that particular case as given by one officer..... because the guy "looked suspicious and we had never seen that subject in that area before."   Prior to that case in 1979 an officer could stop you because you merely looked suspicious to him and it was lawful. That is no longer the case. Today you need reasonable suspicion and if an arrest is made, the officer has to complete a probable cause affidavit which is a sworn document. Of course the officer can lie just like anyone else but he has to swear to it at the time of the arrest and on a notarized document. If you can show that he lied, he will be fired and have charges filed on him and yes it does happen but it is very rare in my opinion, especially where more than one officer is involved. I don't want to go to prison for something another guy did and neither does any other officer that I know.    With today's standard of reasonable suspicion, you do not have to have committed any crime to be lawfully detained. You are not convicted of a crime until you have been charged and pleaded guilty or have been found guilty in a trial.   An example which actually happens in the area of reasonable suspicion, let's say an officer on patrol sees a guy coming out from a dark alley behind a closed business at 3:00AM. It is reasonable to believe that at that the officer might be witnessing a burglary that is in progress or that may have just happened? I would say yes and the courts will probably back me up. In fact I think a majority of the public will say that it is definitely suspicious but we really can't prove that a crime has even been committed at that point, much less if that guy in the alley is the one that did it. An officer has the lawful authority at that time for a detention based on his observations. What has happened many times is that it is the business owner checking on his own business or working late. Just because he has a perfectly legal right to be there, he can still be lawfully detain. I can't tell you how many times we have responded to crime scenes with someone breaking into a home only to find out it was the homeowner that was drunk and accidentally locked himself out and was breaking into his own home. Of course the neighbor that called and the police do not know that until they detain the guy and look into it.    If someone flees from a lawful detention, it is a crime even if the person had not actually committed any crime when the officer tried to detain him. In fact another Supreme Court case, Illinois v. Wardlow they said that fleeing from an officer, with no other suspicion, is in itself reasonable suspicion.    I hear people often say, "the police can't do that". Well, in most cases yes they can as upheld many times by the Supreme Court. You can contest it later in a trial if you are charged and you can get you a lawyer and sue if you think your rights were violated. Fleeing, resisting, hindering and interfering are crimes that people sometimes commit even when no other crime had been committed until after the police detention.    Complying with the lawful authority of the police ends about 99.9% of violent encounters. I can't speak of what another officer did 40 years ago or even today for that matter. Simply making the claim of, "we did nothing illegal" does not stop a lawful detention. I had done nothing illegal either when I was actually brought to the police station. Had I run or resisted even though I committed no crime prior, I likely would not have liked the results. 

    In about 1971 it was the summertime and my best friend and I sometimes "camped out" which was to sleep in a storage shed behind his house and watch the black and white television until it went off about Midnight while we were eating Spam sandwiches.  After that we might go fishing in the canal behind his house or ride our bicycles at night and early morning because it was cool.   One day we were doing that and riding our bicycles, our parents knew where we were and we were doing nothing wrong. That did not stop the Nederland police from not just questioning us but we were brought in to the police station. When our parents were called (woken up) and said they knew exactly what we were doing, they had to release us. The last thing we were told was that they were going to try and find what we had broken into.   I was sure praying that something hadn't been broken into that night............